GamerTab That was an excellent one.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

roguegrafix This two-part series has a lot going for it and a lot against it.Firstly, the good points: Well produced with some good sets. The acting is generally fine except for the leading lady (in the present scenes) but that has a lot to do with the poor material she has to work with. Interesting concept, albeit slightly hackneyed. Action is generally good and John Hurt has such an enchanting voice.However, the source material and hence the script is pretty poor. It bears the hallmark of one of those lengthy 800-1,000 page novels that are generally poorly written. I haven't read the book (and don't plan to) but I suspect it's one of those. The script has sadly had to be developed from such a poor choice.There are holes in the plot, in the characterization--you name it, everything. The lead woman in the present just wonders about aimlessly lost even those she's inherited a house from out of the blue, is missing her best friend, has just escaped bullies trying to kidnap her, is having hallucinations and eying up a potential romance—all at the same time. You get the picture.If you can get over all these distractions, it's a watchable fare.

Dain Slatton While much of the acting and production was skilled, the writing is self-indulgent, unrealistic, and reflects the severe mental issues of the creator in a very bad way. It seems as though the writer despises men, exists in a bizarre reality of their own creation, and yet has a peculiar lack of any original thought. It is a shame when so many talented people put so much effort into to script of an inferior storyteller, who's work is colored by their own madness and therefore creates characters who cannot be related to by those with a firmer grasp on reality. Every actor's performance was excellent with the exception of Vanessa Kirby, who made me wonder if she was aware she was supposed to be acting.

blendingcolours First of all, I think the story on Cathars is a brilliant topic for film - barely touched in films. I'm disappointed that not everything was filmed in location (Southern Africa? Why? Languedoc and around wasn't good enough?). The other thing, but it's a personal thing, the archaeological excavations were rubbish - nobody digs like that! (but I'm an archaeologist, so it's my thing). I didn't really enjoy the modern part of the story because of acting - actors and actresses were very stiff and unnatural. It looks like the modern story was directed and filmed by somebody else, but the Medieval part was much better in execution. I give 9 for the Medieval part and 3 for modern part, so it's 6 in general. My opinion is based on the first episode.

joanne taylor I watched this while on holiday and was quite literally blown away.I knew a little about the book (i'd read half of it on holiday before accidentally leaving it in hotel room) and what I'd remembered seemed almost identical to what was realised in the film.The story flicks back and forth between Alice in the modern (played by the excellent Vanessa Kirby) and Alais her medieval counterpoint (played by Jessica Brown Findlay- Lady Cybil from Downton Abbey.The subject matter (the quest for the Holy Grail) could easily have been silly but somehow everything feels very convincing and real. It is a little violent at times but it was a violent period so I suppose it had to be.There are a lot of characters in the story so there's a lot to take in in episode one but it all builds up to an amazing battle that looks like it was made for cinema instead of TV.Overall amazing TV that really took me by surprise. Now I want to read book again.